To be fair to Pou, he never said they were bad players at all. He merely said they hadn't won a premiership since Johns started coaching them. But really he was simply using a 'ruse' to cover his lack of argument on the topic.
People are arguing that organsing is a halfbacks job.
Pou says it isn't.
Johns says Parra needs an organiser
Pou says Johns has no idea about the modern game.
Someone says 'but Johns coaches in the modern game'.
The next step in the logic is to prove whether or not Johns teaches the players to 'organise' and then to argue as to whether or not that is neccessary.
But Pou only pretended to do that by pointing out that Johns coaching stint at Manly started after they won the premiership, and since they haven't won a premiership since, his deduction is that the team has gone backwards.
Now he's effectively sidelined the conversation over whether or not a halfback organises, and made it all about whether or not Manly are going backwards. He can argue down that tangent for days, while still maintaining his (unproven) statement that there is no organising required in the modern game.
Don't feel bad, it's the method he uses to argue any particular point, makes an unproven statement, then argues about tangents to keep real discussion sidelined!
__________
If you wanted to prove organising is important, why not just submit as "proof" Johns' statement that we need an organiser? There's a current 'coach' who says it is part of the game.
As further proof, you could submit the lack of a statement by any coach that 'organising halves' are not part of the game anymore.
In fact, you could even call players to the witness stand, and quote guys like Andrew Ryan, talking just a couple of years ago about Ben Barba
There's really no need to argue in favour of the fact that part of a halves job is to organise the team, it's the evidence against that fact which needs to presented if Pou wants to make his point.
